CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Language is an inseparable part of our everyday lives. It is the main tool used

to transmit messages, to communicate ideas, thoughts and opinions. It situates us in

the society we live in; it is a social affair which creates and further determines our

position in all kinds of various social interactions and situations. In certain

circumstances we are literally dependent on its appropriate usage and there are

moments when we need to be understood quite correctly. Language is involved in

nearly all fields of human activity and maybe that is why language and linguistic

communication have become a widely discussed topic among linguists, lawyers,

psychologists and philosophers.

According to an American language philosopher J.R. Searle (1976: p.16)

speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving

commands, asking questions or making promises. Searle states that all linguistic

communication involves linguistic (speech) acts. In other words, speech acts are the

basic or minimal units of linguistic communication. They are not mere artificial

linguistic constructs as it may seem, their understanding together with the

acquaintance of context in which they are performed are often essential for decoding

the whole utterance and its proper meaning. According to the definition above, we are

trying to make some analysis of speech act theory and directness or indirectness using

some theories from linguists as a fundamental development of our paper.

1.2 Problems of study

1. What is speech act?

2. What is the relationship between Locutionary, Illocutionary, and

Perlocutionary Act?

3. What are the classes of Illocutionary Act?

4. What is direct and indirect speech act?

1

1.3 Purposes of study

1. To know the definition of speech act and its functions.

2. To know the relationship between locutionary, illocutionary, and

perlocutionary act.

3. To know the classes of illocutionary act and its functions.

4. To know what is called direct and indirect speech act and its functions.

2

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

2.1 Speech Acts

To produce an utterance is to engage in a certain kind of interaction. This is a

fact that, until recently, logicians and philosophers of language have tended to

overlook thought it has been stressed by linguists, psychologists, sociolinguists, and

anthropologists. One of the most features of the theory of speech act, which was

introduced into the philosophy of language by J. L. Austin, is that it give explicit

recognition to the social or interpersonal dimension of language behaviour and

provide a general framework for the discussion of semantic and syntactic distinctions

that linguists have traditionally described in terms of mood and modality (in Lyons

1977:p.725).

Austin criticizes the view that the main purpose of sentences would be to state

facts or to describe some state of affairs as either true or false. He argues against,

which retains the view that the only meaningful statements are those that are

verifiable (Austin.1976: p.2). Instead, Austin claims that such truth-evaluable

sentences only constitute one type of utterance, pointing out that there are other types

of utterances which are neither true nor false, but nonetheless meaningful. He calls

this second type of utterance "performative". Performatives are used to carry out an

action. In that they differ from other types of declarative sentences (constatives)

which only describe the world (constatives) in systematic ways. On the syntactic

level, however, both performatives and constatives take the grammatical form of

declarative sentences. Austin revises his theory considerably in the course of his

lectures and eventually replaces the dichotomy ‘performative’ vs. ‘constative’ with a

more general theory of speech acts which regards every utterance as a type of action.

Lyons (1977) which is cited by Nitiasih shows that there are two

characteristics of speech act, they are:

3

1) Speech act does not refer to the act of speaking as such (i.e. to the production of

actual spoken utterance), but to something more abstract.

2) Speech act is not restricted to communication by means of spoken language

because there are also certain non-linguistic communicative acts conveying

certain meanings.

Speech act can be analysed on three levels. In Austin’s further development of

investigating about speech act, he drew three dictinctions between Locutionary acts,

Illocutionary acts, and Perlocutionary acts as the following:

1) A Locutionary Act is an act of saying; the production of meaningful utterance, the

utterance of certain noises, the utterance of certain words in a certain construction,

and the utterance of them with a certain ‘meaning’ in the favourite philosophical

sense of that word, i.e. with a certain sense and a certain reference (Austin 1962:

p.944 as cited by Lyons 1977: p.730).

2) An Illocutionary Act is an act performed in saying something; making a statement

or promise, issuing a command or request, asking a question, christening a ship,

etc.

3) A Perlocutionary Act is an act performed by means of saying something; getting

someone to believe that something is so, persuading someone to do something,

moving someone to anger, consoling someone in his distress, etc.

A short illustration example of the relationship between those three acts above

can be seen as follows:

In uttering the locution "Is there any salt?" at the dinner table, one may

thereby perform the illocutionary act of requesting salt, as well as the distinct

locutionary act of uttering the interrogatory sentence about the presence of salt, and

the further perlocutionary act of causing somebody to hand one the salt.

4

Balinese examples of Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Act can

be seen in the following table:

Locutionary Act Literal Meaning

1. Yeh PDAMe mati

o?

1. An interrogatory

sentence about

the condition of

PDAM water.

2. Bengkung ne, mu

tegehang bin

menek. (often

used to give

command to

children)

2. A command

sentence of

having someone

to climb higher

than before.

3.Maal gulane o?

(when someone is

given a cup of

coffe/tea, but the

coffe/tea is low of

sugar)

3.An interrogatory

sentence about the

price of sugar.

Illocutionary Act Intended Meaning 1. Yeh PDAMe mati

o?

1. A request

sentence of

requesting water.

2. Bengkung ne, mu

tegehang bin

menek. (often

used to give

command to

children)

2. A command

sentence of

having someone

to get down from

climbing

(opposite

meaning).

3.Maal gulane o?

(when someone is

3.A request sentence

of requesting some

5

given a cup of

coffe/tea, but the

coffe/tea is low of

sugar)

sugar to be added to

someone’s coffe/tea.

Perlocutionary Act Actions/Respons 1. Yeh PDAMe mati

o?

1. A. (Locution):

One may answer

the question by

saying “Oo, be uli

ibi yeh PDAMe

mati”.

B. (Illocution):

One may take or

get a glass of

water to be given

to the another

one.

2. Bengkung ne, mu

tegehang bin

menek. (often

used to give

command to

children)

2. A. (Locution):

One may climb

higher than

before.

B. (Illocution):

One may get

down from

climbing.

3. Maal gulane o?

(when someone is

given a cup of

coffe/tea, but the

coffe/tea is low of

sugar)

3. A. (Locution):

one may answer

the question by

saying “Oo,

gulane be terus

menek hargane

jani. Harga

barang be

6

mekejang

menek”.

B. (Illocution): One

may take or get some

sugar to be added to

the someone’s

coffe/tea.

2.2 Approaches in Defining “Illocutionary Act”

Many define the term "illocutionary act" with reference to examples, saying

for example that any speech act (like stating, asking, commanding, promising, and so

on) is an illocutionary act. This approach has generally failed to give any useful hints

about what traits and elements make up an illocutionary act; that is, what defines such

an act. It is also often emphasised that Austin introduced the illocutionary act by

means of a contrast with other kinds of acts or aspects of acting: the illocutionary act,

he says, is an act performed in saying something, as contrasted with a locutionary act,

the act of saying something, and also contrasted with a perlocutionary act, an act

performed by saying something. Austin (1975: p.123) eventually abandoned the "in

saying" / "by saying" test.

According to the conception adopted by Bach and Harnish in 'Linguistic

Communication and Speech Acts' (1979), an illocutionary act is an attempt to

communicate, which they analyse as the expression of an attitude. Another conception

of an illocutionary act goes back to Schiffer's book 'Meaning' (1972: p.103), in which

the illocutionary act is represented as just the act of meaning something.

Based on their essential conditions, and attending to the minimal purpose or

intention of the speaker in performing an illocutionary act, Searle (1975) proposes a

taxonomy of illocutionary acts into five mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive

classes:

7

Representative or assertive. The speaker becomes committed to the truth of the

propositional content.

Directive. The speaker tries to get the hearer to act in such a way as to fulfill what

is represented by the propositional content.

Commissive. The speaker becomes committed to act in the way represented by the

propositional content.

Expressive. The speaker simply expresses the sincerity condition of the

illocutionary act.

Declarative. The speaker performs an action just representing herself as

performing that action.

The examples of Illocutionary Act Classes are shown in the following table:

Representative Expressive Directive Commisive Declarative

1. He is

Balinese

people.

(representati

on of Bali)

1. I am glad

that I pass

the final

exam

(happiness).

1. Close the

door please!

(command)

1. I will be there

at 9.

(promise)

1. I name this boy “the

naughty insect”.

(giving a name to

something/someone

)

2. I serve you a

delicious

Japanese

food.

(representati

on of Japan)

2. I am so

sorry for my

mistakes

that I have

done

(apologize).

2. Could you

please give

me a cup of

tea!

(request)

2. I will finish

the

homework by

tomorrow.

(promise)

2. Dengan ini saya

menyatakan

kemerdekaan

indonesia.

(Declaration of

independent)

3. I play the

traditional

Balinese

music.

(representatio

n of Bali)

3. I am sorry

to hear that

your father

has just

passed away

(condolance

).

3. Turn the

light on

please!

(command)

4. I promise that

I will love

you until the

end of the

world.

(promise)

4. Manis ti ceweke ne,

I “madu” adanin ne

mare cocok. (giving

a name to

something/someone)

8

2.3 Illocutionary Force

Several speech act theorists, including Austin himself, make use of the notion

of an illocutionary force. In Austin's original account, the notion remains rather

unclear. Some followers of Austin, such as David Holdcroft, view illocutionary force

as the property of an utterance to be made with the intention to perform a certain

illocutionary act rather than as the successful performance of the act (which is

supposed to further require the appropriateness of certain circumstances). According

to this conception, the utterance of "I bet you five pounds that it will rain" may well

have an illocutionary force even if the addressee doesn't hear it. However, Bach and

Harnish assume illocutionary force just in case this or that illocutionary act is actually

(successfully) performed. According to this conception, the addressee must have

heard and understood that the speaker intends to make a bet with them in order for the

utterance to have 'illocutionary force'.

If we adopt the notion of illocutionary force as an aspect of meaning, then it

appears that the (intended) 'force' of certain sentences, or utterances, is not quite

obvious. If someone says, "It sure is cold in here", there are several different

illocutionary acts that might be aimed at by the utterance. The utterer might intend to

describe the room, in which case the illocutionary force would be that of 'describing'.

But she might also intend to criticise someone who should have kept the room warm.

Or it might be meant as a request to someone to close the window. These forces may

be interrelated: it may be by way of stating that the temperature is too cold that one

criticises someone else. Such a performance of an illocutionary act by means of the

performance of another is referred to as an indirect speech act.

2.4 Direct Speech Act

One subtype of speech acts is that of direct speech. A direct speech act is

defined as one in which only the illocutionary force and propositional content literally

expressed by the lexical items and syntactic form of the utterance are communicated.

What this means, essentially, is that in a direct speech act, only necessary words and

word-orderings are used to convey a message.

Brown and Levinson (1987: p.66) cite some common uses of direct speech:

a) Commands/requests. (e.g. Open the door please!)

9

b) Suggestions/advice. (e.g. You should not do that again)

) Expressions of disagreement or disapproval. (e.g. I do not agree with you)

However, because direct speech is employed for maximal efficiency, it is

meant to satisfy a speaker’s desires, the addressee’s wants are sometimes overlooked,

which may result in the addressee taking offence. Offending the listener is undesirable

and can be construed as aggressive, while the purpose of speech acts is to gain

compliance. Thus, direct speech is avoided when possible and supplanted by indirect

speech (Brown & Levinson, 1987: p.60).

The examples of Direct Speech Act as the respons to someone

utterances/sentences are shown as follows:

English

Sentences/Utterances

Direct Speech

Act/Respons

Balinese

Sentences/Utterances

Direct Speech

Act/Respons

1. Would you join me

to go to the party

tonight?

1. I am sorry, I

would not.

(direct rejection)

1. Melali ke umah

ake nyak?

1. Ake sing ngidang

nok. (direct

rejection)

2. Could you lend the

book for about two

days?

2. I could not.

(direct rejection)

2. Mai nongkrong

ajake je minum.

2. Beh, ake sing demen

minum. (direct

rejection)

3. Will you go with

me to have a cup of

coffe?

3. Sorry I won’t.

(direct rejection)

3. De be melajah,

nyontek gen mani.

3. Sing dadi nyontek.

Harus melajah

pedidi. (direct

suggestion)

4. I have him to finish

my homework.

4. You shouldn’t

do that. (direct

suggestion)

4. Adanan timpale

gen orain ngae

tugase. Cocok

asane?

4.Ahh, ake sing setuju.

Jelek keto.

(disagreement)

5. How about we

direclty buy the

product from the

5.Sorry, I don’t

agree with you.

(disagreement)

5.Melali ke umah ake

nyak?

5.Ake sing ngidang

nok. (direct rejection)

10

company?

2.5 Indirect Speech Act

In the course of performing speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each

other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the

content intended to be communicated.

However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic

means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may

also be different from the content intended to be communicated. One may, in

appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying, "Peter ...!", or

one can promise to do the dishes by saying, "Me!" One common way of performing

speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed

performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may,

for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he

will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he does so. Since the request

is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an

indirect speech act.

Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make

requests. For example, a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and

another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to

reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does

not entail any sort of rejection.

Other examples of Indirect Speech Act are shown in the following table:

English

Sentences/Utterances

Indirect Speech

Act/Respons

Balinese

Sentences/Utterances

Indirect Speech

Act/Respons

1. Would you join me

to go to the party

tonight?

1. I have something

to do tonight.

1. Melali ke umah

ake nyak?

1. Lakar ngae tugas

malu.

11

2. Could you lend the

book for about two

days?

2. I am still using

that book.

2. Mai nongkrong

ajake je minum.

2. Mani kuliah pagi

nok.

3. Will you go with

me to have a cup of

coffe?

3. I have a class 3. Engken asane yen

nongkrong jani di

PP?

3. Rame gati bro.

4. Would you go to a

movie with me?

4. I have other

business to be

done.

4.Tolong je jemput

ake di kos nah.

4.Ake sing ngabe

motor.

5. How about having

lunch at the

restaurant?

5.I have just had it.

2.6 The Analysis of A Conversation

Here is given a conversation with its analysis which may be involving the

illocutionary classes, direct speech act and indirect speech act. The conversation is

taken from a television show called “Ups Salah” which invloves Vincen as the host

and Tantri Kotak as the target.

Tantri : Hallo

Vincen : Perkenalkan saya putu, eee... saya supervisior ... bali

Tantri : Iya

Vincen : Kemarin tantri sempat ke bali ya?

Tantri : Oooo aku beli ... beli sesuatu di sana

Vincen : Iya beli jaket ya?

Tantri : Iya tadi dipakek juga kan mas?

12

Vincen : Ohhh yaaa gitu gitu, saya mau minta maaf sebelumnya ini kesalahan

dari kita, tantri.

Tantri : Teruus?

Vincen : Harga jaketnya kemaren itu yang tertempel di jaketnya itu salah

Tantri : Lo?

Vincen : Kan harga di situ tertulis kemarin itu 1,3

Tantri : Iya iya

Vincen : Itu terjadi kesalahan ternyata tidak segitu

Tantri : Berapa?

Vincen : Itu harga aslinya 2750

Tantri : 2750, Harusnya?

Vincen : Iya dua juta tujuh ratus lima puluh, tapi bisa nggak tantri kirim via

rekening gitu rekening Bank? Transfer aja bisa?

Tantri : (Parah...parah...) mas kemarin kan satu tiga belinya

Vincen : Ya itu ada kesalahan dari pegawai saya, saya sudah marahin itu

Tantri : Bentar,bentar ngomong sama manager saya aja ya

Vincen : Nggak nggak saya mau ngomong sama tantri aja sebentar

Posan : Kenapa sih?

Tantri : Harga jaketnya satu tiga, dia lihat gua di Derings, dia bilang

harganya dua tujuh lima puluh

Posan : Maksudnya gimana?

Tantri : Gua harus nambahin

Vincen : Saya, saya mau ngomong sama tantrinya bisa?

Tantri : Hallo

13

Vincen : Hallo tantri

Tantri : Nggak soalnya gini bli,kita kan kemarin belinya kan 1,3

Vincen : Iya

Tantri : Dan itu udah fix kan 1,3?masaa tiba tiba di ubah dua koma...

Vincen : Karena itu jaket kan limited edition kami harap sih tantri bisa

melunasi sisanya

Tantri : Sekarang kan kesalahannya maaf sebentar dulu, sekarang

kesalahannya di bli kan?

Vincen : Iya betul betul

Tantri : Di situ tertera harganya 1,3 kenapa tiba tiba saya pakek terus tiba tiba

di ganti dua koma…

Vincen : Tapi mengapa anda pakek dulu gitu kalo kalo anda pakek kan kita

sudah tidak bisa minta

Tantri : Loo saya beli lo bli di situ cash 1,3 hak saya saya pakek

Vincen : Ya tapi kan kalo andaikata belum di pakek mungkin tu jaket bisa di

balikin lagi

Tantri : Saya balikin aja deh bli saya sudah males kayak gini

Vincen : Tantri, kita megharapkan bisa di balikkan, tapi kalo tantri bilang

sudah dipakai apalagi di sebuah TV gitu jadi mungkin harga jualnya nggak segitu

lagi

Tantri : Ya udah sekarang gini bli, sorry, saya beli kemaren 1,3 hak saya saya

akan pakek kapan aja tiba tiba udah 3 hari nambah lagi, nah saya bingung dong?

Kalo gitu ambil aja nih ambil sendiri gitu

Vincen : Tapi kan udah di pakek udah bau gitu nggak nggak

Tantri : Looooo loooo

Vincen : Andaikata kalau tu jaket belum di pakek

14

Tantri : Kesalahan ada di anda mas...kalo anda mau ambil, ambil aja.

Source: (http:/www.youtube.com)

The analysis of the conversation above in details can be seen below:

Sentences/Utterances In The Conversation Analysis

(Series of utterances 1):

1. Ohhh yaaa gitu gitu, saya mau minta

maaf sebelumnya ini kesalahan dari

kita, tantri.

2. Teruus?

3. Harga jaketnya kemaren itu yang

tertempel di jaketnya itu salah

4. Lo?

This conversation is a series of utterances which

causes the appearance of some expressions. The

utterance number 1 is an expression of apologize

that affect the second speaker to utter the respon

“terus?”. From that utterance, it can be seen that it

is an expression of implicit request which having

the first speaker to speak more and give more

reasons of the utterance number 1. And then, the

utterance number 3 is the reason of the utterance

number 1 which then causes another respon of

expressing confuse in utterance number 4.

So in short, those 4 utterances if we see from

the illocutionary classes, those can be

classified as: number 1 is classified as

expressive class, number 2 is classified as

directive class, and number 4 is classified as

expressive class.

And if we see from directness and indirectness,

those 4 utterances can be classified as: number

1 is classified as direct speech act, number 2 is

classified as indirect speech act, number 3 is

classified as direct speech act, and number 4 is

classified as indirect speech act.

(Series of utterances 2):

1. Iya dua juta tujuh ratus lima puluh,

The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1

seems a question, but actually it is implicit

15

tapi bisa nggak tantri kirim via

rekening gitu rekening Bank? Transfer

aja bisa?

2. (Parah...parah...) mas kemarin kan

satu tiga belinya

3. Ya itu ada kesalahan dari pegawai

saya, saya sudah marahin itu

4. Bentar,bentar ngomong sama manager

saya aja ya

5. Nggak nggak saya mau ngomong sama

tantri aja sebentar

6. Kenapa sih?

command that is uttered politely. It is a command

of having the hearer/other speakers to send amount

of money through bank account which then make

the hearer/the other speakers feel disappointed by

expressing an implicit utterance of disappointment

that can be seen in the italicized utterance number

2. That makes the first speaker give more reasons

in the next utterance. In utterance number 4 the

speaker is clearly stating a command of having the

hearer to talk to her/his manager because he/she is

bored of talking with the hearer for any longer. But

then the hearer/the other speakers refuse the

command by stating a refusal/rejection expression

clearly which can be seen in utterance number 5

that makes the hearer/other speakers feel curious as

he/she have stated in the utterance number 6.

So, if we see from the illocutionary classes,

those utterances can be classified as: number 1

is classified as directive class, number 2 is

classified as expressive class, number 4 is

classified as directive class, number 5 is

classified as directive class, and number 6 is

classified as expressive class.

And if we see from directness and indirectness,

those utterances can be classified as: number 1

is classified as indirect speech act, number 2 is

classified as indirect speech act, number 3 is

classified as direct speech act, number 4 is

classified as direct speech act, number 5 is

classified as direct speech act, and number 6 is

classified as indirect speech act.

(Series of utterances 3): The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1

16

1. Karena itu jaket kan limited edition

kami harap sih tantri bisa melunasi

sisanya.

2. Sekarang kan kesalahannya, maaf

sebentar dulu, sekarang kesalahannya

di bli kan?

is an expression of hope which is purposed to the

hearer/the other speakers. It is causing the

hearer/the other speakers respon the utterance by

using implicit command. If it is seen, it seems an

expression of apologizing, but it is actually a

command of having the hearer/the other speakers

to stop speaking at the moment.

So, if it is seen from the illocutionary classes,

those utterances can be classified as: number 1

is classified as commisive class and number 2

is classified as directive class.

And if it is seen from directness and

indirectness, those utterances can be classified

as: number 1 is classified as direct speech act

and number 2 is classified as indirect speech

act.

(Series of utterances 4):

1. Saya balikin aja deh bli saya sudah

males kayak gini

2. Tantri, kita megharapkan bisa di

balikkan, tapi kalo tantri bilang sudah

dipakai apalagi di sebuah TV gitu jadi

mungkin harga jualnya nggak segitu

lagi.

3. Ya udah sekarang gini bli, sorry, saya

beli kemaren 1,3 hak saya saya akan

pakek kapan aja tiba tiba udah 3 hari

nambah lagi, nah saya bingung dong?

Kalo gitu ambil aja nih ambil sendiri

gitu.

4. Tapi kan udah di pakek udah bau gitu

nggak nggak....

The italicized utterance in the utterance number 1

is showing an expression of anger or disappointed

clearly. But the respon of that utterance is not

relating or it has no relationship. It can be seen in

the utterance number 2. And then, it is causing an

expression of apologizing “sorry” which is

followed by other expressions of confuse and

command that can clearly be seen in the utterance

number 3. Afterwards, we move to the utterance

number 5. It can be an implicit expression of

disappointment, anger, or confuse. But if it is seen

from the context, it is exactly an expression of

disappointment. Those series of utterances finally

causes en expression of explicit command which is

uttered by the hearer/the other speakers. It can be

seen in the italicized utterance in the last

17

5. Looooo loooo....

6. Andaikata kalau tu jaket belum di

pakek.

7. Kesalahan ada di anda mas...kalo anda

mau ambil, ambil aja.

utterance/utterance number 7.

If we see from the illocutionary classes, those

italicized utterances can be classified as:

number 1 is classified as expressive class,

number 2 is classified as commisive class,

number 3 is classified as expressive class and

directive class, number 5 is classified as

expressive class, and number 7 is classified as

directive class.

And if we see from directness and indirectness,

those utterances can be classified as: number 1

is classified as direct speech act, number 2 is

classified as direct speech act, number 3 is

classified as direct speech act, number 4 is

classified as direct speech act, number 5 is

classified as indirect speech act, number 6 is

classified as indirect speech act, and number 7

is classified as direct speech act.

2.7 The Relationship Between Speech Act and Discourse Analysis

As discussed above about some of the central ideas of speech act theory as

formulated by philosophers Austin and Searle, and then applied these ideas to a

particular set of speech acts in a discourse. I this case, the writer find that how speech

act theory provides an approach to discourse analysis. In addition, after discussing

some key insights and concepts critical to speech act theory, next is how it applies to

discourse analysis. Speech act theory provides a framework in which to identify the

conditions underlying the production and understanding of utterances as a particular

linguistically realized action. The essential insight of speech act theory is that

language performs communicative acts.

18

Searle (1969: p.21) states speech act is the basic unit of communication, taken

together with the principle of expressibility, suggest that there are a series analytic

connections between the notion of speech act, what the speaker means, what the

speaker intends, what the hearer understands, and what rules governing the linguistic

elements.

Related to that opinion, speech act theory is basically concerned with what

people do, with language and with the function of language. Typically, the functions

focused upon communicative intentions (the illocutionary act) that can be labeled

(that have a performative verb) and realized in a single sentence. Language can be

used for speech act because people share rules that create the acts: utterances “count

as” successful and non defective performances of speech acts when they fulfill certain

conditions. The rules and conditions draw upon linguistic knowledge (the relationship

between tense and the reference time of an event) and knowledge about the world,

(the relationship between tense and the reference time of an event) and knowledge

about the world (people may be obligated to behave in certain ways) that allows

certain linguistic devices to indicate illocutionary act.

The speech act approach to discourse focuses upon knowledge of underlying

conditions for production and interpretation of acts through words. It can be noted that

words may perform more than one action at a time and that contexts may help to

separate multiple function of utterances from one another. The literal meaning of

words and contexts in which they occur may interact in our knowledge of the

conditions underlying the realization of acts and the interpretations of acts. Although

speech act theory was not first developed as a means of analyzing discourse, speech

act theory also provides a means by which segment texts, and thus a framework for

defining units that could then be combined into larger structures.

If we want to consider speech theory as an approach to discourse, however, we

need to consider how speech act function contributes to sequential coherence and how

speech act function of one utterance contributes to one that of another.

19

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

When people speaking a language, they are acting the speech act like asking

questions, commands, requests, promises, expressing feelings, and etc. Those have

been involved in the speech act theory particularly on three levels of speech act,

namely locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary act. Those three levels have a

close relationship which cannot be separated each other. Those are the relation of

literal and intended meaning which has been produced and reproduces respons of

those two meanings. There are also more detail classes that are parts of illocutionary

act, they are representative, expressive, directive, commissive, and declarative. All of

those classes are often uttered indirectly or even directly. The speech act theory is

closely related to the dicourse analysis. It is defined as an approach to dicourse

analysis. In other words, every humans activities that is involving a language, it must

be involving the speech act. It is related to how people communicate with others and

what the tool humans used in communicating with others.

20

REFERENCES

Austin, John L., 1962a, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon.

Austin, John L., 1961, “Performative Utterances,” in J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock

(eds.), Philosophical Papers, Oxford: Clarendon.

Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard

University Press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis.downloaded at 08.00 p.m.Monday

23rd April 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act.downloaded at 07.30 p.m.Tuesday 24th April

2012

http://ilmuperhotelangratis.blogspot.com/2009/05/contoh-english-conversation-di-

sebuah.html.downloaded at 01.00 p.m.Sunday 13rd May 2012

http://www.yadayadaenglish.com/invitations.htm.downloaded at 01.00.p.m.Sunday

13rd May 2012

http://www.youtube.com.downloaded at 11.00 a.m. Friday 18th May 2012

21